[Judgment of the Court was made by N.AUTHINATHAN, J.] The above first appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 14.07.2011, passed in O.S.No.166 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli.
2.This appeal has been preferred by the idol of Sri Renganathaswamy, Srirengam, represented by its Executive Officer/Joint Commissioner. The appellant was not a party to the said suit. With the leave of this Court, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
3.The plaintiff Nambi Ramakrishnan Chettiar and Rengasamy Chettiar Trust represented by its Hereditary Trustees /respondents 1 to 6 in the appeal has filed the suit against the seventh respondent (sole defendant), seeking permission to sell the suit properties for Rs.60,00,000/- to Mr.M.Kumar/8th respondent herein and for a direction to the purchaser to deposit the sale proceeds into Court.
4. Nambi Ramakrishnan Chettiar and Rangasamy Chettiar, the adopted son of Ramakrishna Chettiar jointly executed a settlement deed (Ex.A1), dated 03.09.1907. They have set apart B to F schedule properties in the settlement deed for performance of charities in temples and Annansamy Thirumaligai at Srirengam. G schedule properties are to be enjoyed by the trustees, who perform the above mentioned charities. In the first instance, Ramakrishnan Chettiar himself became the trustee. After his lifetime, Rangasamy Chettiar became the trustee. Thereafter, his heirs have to perform the charities. Rangasamy Chettiar died leaving his only daughter Nagalakshmi Ammal as his sole legal heir. During the lifetime of Nagalakshmi Ammal, she was in possession of the trust properties and she had performed the charities with the aid of her eldest son Ramakrishnan. Ramakrishnan and the respondents 1 to 3 are the sons of Nagalakshmi Ammal. Respondents 4 to 6 are the sons of Ramakrishnan. After the death of Nagalakshmi Ammal and Ramakrishnan, the respondents 1 to 6 have been performing the charities as set out in the settlement deed.
5. As per the settlement deed, the income from the B schedule properties in the settlement deed should be utilized every year on Chithirai month for the idol of Sri Renganathasamy temple (appellant) on 11th day of Viruppan Thirunal. The income from C schedule properties is to be utilized every year during the Bramotsavam of Thiruvallarai Pundarikaksha Perumal (13th respondent), that takes place in the month of Panguni. The income from D schedule properties is to be utilized during the Bramotsavam of Prasanna Venkateswaraswami (12th respondent) that takes place on the 11th day in the month of Purattasi every year. The income from E schedule properties is to be utilized for the performance of Thirunakshatra Theertham to Srikoil Kandhadai Annanswami Thirumaligai and also for the performance of Thirunakshtra pooja to Azhwars and other saints. The income from F schedule properties is to be utilized for the preparation of neivedyam for Sri Rengathaswamy and Thirukachi Nambi Azhwar and for feeding Desanthiris. Income from the 4th item of F schedule properties should be utilized for conducting Thanneer Panthal Dharmam at the time of Car Festival of Kannanur Mariamman that takes place in the month of Chithirai every year. The settlement deed provides that the income from the G schedule properties is to be taken by the trustees, who perform various kaingaryams set out therein.
6. According to the trustees, the income from the properties was not sufficient to carry out the object of the trust and that therefore, they have decided to sell the properties to 8th respondent, Mr.M.Kumar, who has come forward to purchase the suit properties for Rs.60,000,00/-. The value of the properties was Rs.32,54,985/- as per the guidelines, issued by the Registration Department. It is also their case that as the defendant/7th respondent raised objections to their decision to sell the properties, he has been impleaded as defendant in the suit.
7. Before the trial court, the 8th respondent filed a written statement stating that he has no objection to sell the properties. The first respondent/Balachandran was examined as P.W.1. One of the lessees of the trust properties was examined as P.W.2. The defendant has been examined as D.W.1.
8. The trial court has come to the conclusion that the sale of items 1 to 6 is necessary and granted permission to sell the said items and dismissed the suit in respect of items 7 and 8.
9. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, this appeal has been preferred. The 8th respondent claimed that in pursuance of the decree, he had purchased items 1, 2, 3 and 6 for Rs.55,50,000/-. After purchase, he developed the lands into house sites and executed sale deeds in favour of the respondents 9 to 11. The other respondents namely the respondents 12 to 14 were also added as parties to this appeal. The respondents 12 to 14 supported the case of the appellant.
10.The appellant filed M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015 to receive (i) copy of the proceedings of the Authorised Officer, Tiruchirapalli, dated 07.03.1975 and (ii) a detailed list of joint pattadars of Mannachanallur, Trichy District with a photocopy of settlement register, as additional evidence. In support of the petition, the Executive Officer filed an affidavit. He has stated that since the appellant was not added as party to the suit, they were not able to place any material before the trial court.
11.The learned senior counsel for the appellant would submit that the suit properties were dedicated in favour of temples and the income from the properties is to be used for the purpose of upayams and kaingaryams in the temples as set out in the settlement deed and that therefore, properties cannot be sold without the sanction of the Commissioner, appointed under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Endowments Act, 1959 (H.R & C.E Act). According to him, the suit is not maintainable and only the Commissioner is the competent authority to accord sanction to sell the properties. He would further submit that the appellant and other beneficiaries of the endowment are necessary parties to the suit and that therefore, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and it is liable to be dismissed.
12. The learned senior counsel appearing for the trustees would submit that the endowment is partly secular and partly religious and that therefore, the trial court was justified in granting the permission to sell the properties. The learned senior counsel pointed out that the trustees have to perform ?Thanneer Pandhal Dharmam? (F schedule - 4th item) and it is not a religious charity. It is also their contention that there was no complete dedication in favour of religious charities. In this connection, the learned senior counsel has relied on the decision in R.Murali and others Vs. Kanyaka P.Devasthanam and Charities and Others [(2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 166] to submit that H.R & C.E Act is not applicable to the case at hand.
13. The learned senior counsel appearing for the 8th respondent would submit that the 8th respondent is a bonafide purchaser for value and he has paid Rs.55,50,000/- as sale consideration for the sale of items 1, 2, 3 and 6 of the suit properties and he has developed the properties and that therefore, his interest should be protected.
14. The point that arise for consideration in this appeal is: ?Whether the judgment and decree of the trial court are liable to be set aside.?
15.Points:
The main contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant is that the trial court has no jurisdiction to grant permission to sell the suit property as prayed for by the trustees. Jurisdiction over the suit property is absolutely necessary without which the court cannot try the case. For deciding the question of jurisdiction, the averments made in the plaint are relevant. Under Ex.A.1, properties described in schedules B to F were set apart for religious purposes. In the plaint, the plaintiff has given the details of endowments.
16. In the appeal, we are concerned with suit items 1 to 6, as suit has been dismissed in respect of items 7 & 8. Item 1 of the suit properties forms part of schedule B; items 2 and 3 form part of C schedule; items 4 & 5 form part of D schedule; item 6 forms part of G schedule in Ex.A.1 settlement deed. As already noticed, the income from item No.1 (part of B schedule in Ex.A.1) is to be utilized every year on Chithirai month for the idol of Sri Renganathasamy temple (appellant) on 11th day of Viruppan Thirunal. Income from item Nos.2 and 3 (C schedule properties) is to be utilized every year during the Bramotsavam of Thiruvallarai Pundarikaksha Perumal that takes place in the month of Panguni. The income from item Nos.4 and 5 (D schedule properties) is to be utilized during the Bramotsavam of Prasanna Venkateswaraswami that takes place on the 11th day in the month of Purattasi every year. The income from E schedule properties is to be utilized for the performance of Thirunakshatra Theertham to Srikoil Kandhadai Annanswami Thirumaligai and also for the performance of Thirunakshtra pooja to Azhwars. The income from the 6th item of the property (G schedule properties) is to be taken by the trustees, who perform various kaingaryams set out in the B to F schedule properties. These facts are clearly admitted in the plaint. It is an admitted fact that the settlement deed does not confer powers on the trustees to sell the properties. It is not in dispute that the appellant and respondents 12 to 14 are beneficiaries and they are entitled to be impleaded as parties to the suit. It is not the case of the trustees that the beneficiaries were put on notice before obtaining permission to sell the properties from the court. It is not their case that the appellant and the respondents 12 to 14 are unnecessary parties to the suit.
17. According to the plaint averments (paragraph No.5), the income from the 'B to F' schedule properties were endowed for the performance of Upayams and Kaingaryams to the several temples set out in the settlement deed. Therefore, idols/temples are necessary parties to the suit and the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
18. The trustees have chosen to file the plaint seeking permission to sell the properties. It is not a proceeding under Section 92(1)(f) of Civil Procedure Code. They have filed the plaint under Order 7 Rule 1 of C.P.C r/w
Section 7 of the Charitable and Religious Trusts Act, 1920. The defendant in the suit, as already noticed, said no objection to sell the property. It is significant to note that in the judgment of the trial Court, there is nothing to indicate that it formed an opinion that the plaint relates to a trust to which the provisions of C.P.C and the Charitable and Religious Trust Act, 1920 are applicable. It is well settled that a judgment without jurisdiction is void. When the jurisdiction of a court is challenged, the court is bound to determine the question of jurisdiction, after hearing the parties.
19. It is clear from a reading of the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court in Sappani Mohamed Mohideen and another Vs. R.V.Sethusubramania Pillai and Others (AIR 1974 SC 740), Menakuru Dasaratharami Reddi and another v. Dudukuru Subba Rao and Others (A.I.R 1957 S.C 797), S.Shanmugam Pillai and Others Vs. K.Shanmugam Pillai and Others [(1973) 2 Supreme Court Cases 312] and in K.S.Soundararajan and Others Vs. Commissioner of H.R & C.E and others (2015 (12) Scale) that a question whether or not a dedication in favour of the temple is complete primarily depends on the terms of the grant. Each case must be considered on its facts and the intention of the parties must be determined on reading the document as a whole. In EX.A.1/settlement deed, the settlors set out the charities to be performed from out of the income of the properties. They have also stated that the properties cannot be alienated. There is no direction as to surplus income from the properties. Therefore, we are of the considered view to decide the points urged by the parties herein, further evidence is absolutely necessary in this case. The appellant has also filed M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015 to receive (i) copy of the proceedings of the Authorised Officer, Tiruchirapalli, dated 07.03.1975 and
(ii) a detailed list of joint pattadars of Mannachanallur, Trichy District with a photocopy of settlement register, as additional evidence. Oral evidence is necessary to connect these documents to the suit properties. The entire evidence on record including further evidence which may be let in by the temples is necessary to decide the question as to whether the trial court can accord sanction to sell the suit properties.
20. It is admitted by the learned senior counsel for the trustees and the purchasers that no auction was conducted for sale of the properties. The Supreme Court in R.Venugopala Naidu Vs. Venkatarayulu Charities (AIR 1990 SC
444) held that the property of religious and charitable endowments or institutions must be jealously protected because much segment of the community has beneficial interest therein. Sale by private negotiations which is not visible to the public eye and may even give rise to public suspicion should not, therefore, be permitted unless there are special reasons to justify the same. Care must be given to fix the reserve price, after ascertaining the market value for safeguarding the interest of the endowment. In the case at hand, there is nothing on record to show that there are compelling reasons to depart from the mode of public auction so as to justify the sale in favour of the 8th respondent. There is no clear direction in the judgment to sell the property by public auction. The Court has also not fixed the reserve price as per the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the judgment of the trial court suffers from infirmities and the matter requires fresh consideration.
21. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the court below are set aside. The suit in O.S.No.166 of 2009 is remanded to the file of the trial court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Consequently, the permission granted for sale shall stand set aside and the sale effected by the trustees pursuant to the permission will be deemed void. However, the sale amount deposited by the 8th respondent is directed to be refunded to him along with accrued interest. The trustees are directed to implead the appellant and respondents 12 to 14 herein as defendants to the suit. If they are impleaded, they shall file their written statements in the suit within two weeks from the date of impleading. It is open to both the parties to adduce necessary evidence in addition to the evidence, which is already on record. The trial court is directed to dispose of the case as early as possible. The appellant herein is entitled to refund of court fee paid by it in the appeal. The Registry will issue necessary certificate therefor. Consequently, M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015 is closed. The Registry is directed to return the documents filed along with M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2015 to the appellant so as to enable it to produce before the trial court. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court on 20.07.2017 for the purpose of receiving the directions of that court as to further proceedings in the suit. The Registry is directed to send the case records to the trial court expeditiously.
To The First Additional District Judge, Tiruchirappalli..